These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com. While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.

Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15259&Reply=15259><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Simple question for FE Gurus</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ted Young, <i>11/13/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I noticed that although the intake ports on my c80e-n CJ heads and c6ae-r heads are almost identical, the exhaust ports on the c6ae-r heads appear considerably smaller then the CJ heads.  Would it be possible to open up the exhaust ports on the c6aer heads to the CJ specs?<br>I ask because I want to build a good set of heads for my 390, but I DONT want to grind on the CJ heads for obvious reasons.  With a set of CJ valves and porting (probably a LOT of porting), could I get the c6aer heads to outflow the CJs on both the intake and exhaust?<br>Would I be better off to work with a set of the 1959-1965 heads since the exhaust ports on them are a little less constricted then those of the c6ae-r heads to begin with?<br><br>Thanks for reading,<br>Ted Young </blockquote> Simple question for FE Gurus -- Ted Young, 11/13/2002
I noticed that although the intake ports on my c80e-n CJ heads and c6ae-r heads are almost identical, the exhaust ports on the c6ae-r heads appear considerably smaller then the CJ heads. Would it be possible to open up the exhaust ports on the c6aer heads to the CJ specs?
I ask because I want to build a good set of heads for my 390, but I DONT want to grind on the CJ heads for obvious reasons. With a set of CJ valves and porting (probably a LOT of porting), could I get the c6aer heads to outflow the CJs on both the intake and exhaust?
Would I be better off to work with a set of the 1959-1965 heads since the exhaust ports on them are a little less constricted then those of the c6ae-r heads to begin with?

Thanks for reading,
Ted Young
 A favorite search key of mine is "reversion". -- Dave Shoe, 11/14/2002
While "reversion" or "anti-reversion" does not accurately describe the function of the C6AE-R exhaust runner, it does help describe what's going on there. In later posts it sorta became apparent the C6AE-R exhaust was dictated by some poor (conservative) design decisions made when the big-block was stuffed into the Fairlane to make it competitive with the GTO.

The links here speak in recent terms where the function of the so-called "AR" tab has been deduced, and also includes earlier posts which are not quite so sure about the reason for the screwy lip cast into the exhaust runner:

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=14285&Reply=14272

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=13363&Reply=13362

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=12571&Reply=12568

Many more posts can be found by searching for the word "reversion" in the body of the post. Most are descriptions fabricated by me which contain numerous errors, but at the time they were the best I could fathom.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15249&Reply=15249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390gt</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>stephen, <i>11/13/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I had my 390gt rebuilt this past summer.  It's .30 over and a stock grind cam with a new holy 600 that I was running on one of my 289's.  The problem is when I get to 110 the car shuts off. No power untill I let off the gas.  I think the problem is the carb but wanted to ask the experts.  Could the floats be down and are not getting enufe gas.  It's not a dubble pumper.  I think this summer I am going to by a different carb.  What do you think.  Thanks stephen  </blockquote> 390gt -- stephen, 11/13/2002
I had my 390gt rebuilt this past summer. It's .30 over and a stock grind cam with a new holy 600 that I was running on one of my 289's. The problem is when I get to 110 the car shuts off. No power untill I let off the gas. I think the problem is the carb but wanted to ask the experts. Could the floats be down and are not getting enufe gas. It's not a dubble pumper. I think this summer I am going to by a different carb. What do you think. Thanks stephen
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15250&Reply=15249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>I bet it's a fuel delivery problem.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>11/13/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I would check the fuel filter sock that is located inside the gas tank on the pickup / fuel level sending unit assembly. They get covered in slime over the years. If you haven't ever replaced it, now might be a good time.<br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> I bet it's a fuel delivery problem. -- Royce Peterson, 11/13/2002
I would check the fuel filter sock that is located inside the gas tank on the pickup / fuel level sending unit assembly. They get covered in slime over the years. If you haven't ever replaced it, now might be a good time.

Royce Peterson
 RE: I bet it's a fuel delivery problem. -- John, 11/13/2002
I agree. Fuel filter problems give this symptom on the street.....EXACTLY as you described. But it was the in-line fuel filter that was the problem, not the tank screen (as there wasn't one on the cars I had problems with). If the filter looks OK, you might need a higher flow fuel filter. Now, I don't personally believe this, but the experts say you should have 1/2 fuel line. 3/8 always seems to work for me, but I don't risk my FE on 1/4 mile times either. One thing you might want to try is putting the fuel filter ahead of the fuel pump. Pumps push way better than they pull.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15248&Reply=15248><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>number 5 cylinder problems</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Rick C, <i>11/13/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>i have a 66 352 2 bbl truck motor that i have converted to a 390 4 bbl. (crank rods bore and 4bbl cast intake. i burned an exhaust valve on number 5. pulled the heads and had it fixed. once again, i think i may be burning a valve on number 5 cylinder. has anybody else experienced this on number 5. is this common?<br>does anybody have any idea why this one cylinder would continue to cause problems? thanks for any input.<br>rick </blockquote> number 5 cylinder problems -- Rick C, 11/13/2002
i have a 66 352 2 bbl truck motor that i have converted to a 390 4 bbl. (crank rods bore and 4bbl cast intake. i burned an exhaust valve on number 5. pulled the heads and had it fixed. once again, i think i may be burning a valve on number 5 cylinder. has anybody else experienced this on number 5. is this common?
does anybody have any idea why this one cylinder would continue to cause problems? thanks for any input.
rick
 RE: number 5 cylinder problems -- John, 11/13/2002
Are you using the original 352 exhaust manifolds? Maybe #5 is too restrictive. As valves usually go by overheating due to backpressure or too lean a mixture, maybe the carb is set too lean. The 4 corner cylinders might suffer before the others. Number 5 might be the most susceptible depending on the intake design.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15255&Reply=15248><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: number 5 cylinder problems</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Travis Miller, <i>11/13/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Please explain..."once again, i think i may be burning a valve on number 5 cylinder."  What makes you think that?  Have you taken a compression test?   </blockquote> RE: number 5 cylinder problems -- Travis Miller, 11/13/2002
Please explain..."once again, i think i may be burning a valve on number 5 cylinder." What makes you think that? Have you taken a compression test?
 RE: number 5 cylinder problems -- Rick C, 11/14/2002
i have not done a compression test yet, however, i did pull the plugs and the number 5 plug is a little black while the others are buning clean. there also seems to be a slight miss. the compression test is the next thing i plan on doing. just wanted to see if anybody else has had this type problem with an fe or had any suggestions as to the cause.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15241&Reply=15241><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>406 Head info</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Wayne, <i>11/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hi guys,I met an old racer a while back I bought a 406 TriPower and the original Heads that matched(he said).The heads have a Casting # of C3AE-6090-C and the date code is   3F27  on both.With the talk of these possibly coming on 390 cars as well is there any way to tell for sure what these are.Wayne </blockquote> 406 Head info -- Wayne, 11/12/2002
Hi guys,I met an old racer a while back I bought a 406 TriPower and the original Heads that matched(he said).The heads have a Casting # of C3AE-6090-C and the date code is 3F27 on both.With the talk of these possibly coming on 390 cars as well is there any way to tell for sure what these are.Wayne
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15243&Reply=15241><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>From the archive (SEARCH: 'C3AE-C')...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>11/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote><a href="http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=10416&Reply=10416">http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=10416&Reply=10416</a><br><br><a href="http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=7348&Reply=7348">http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=7348&Reply=7348</a><br><br><a href="http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=8031&Reply=8012">http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=8031&Reply=8012</a><br><br><a href="http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=10155&Reply=10139">http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=10155&Reply=10139</a> </blockquote> From the archive (SEARCH: 'C3AE-C')... -- Mr F, 11/12/2002
http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=10416&Reply=10416

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=7348&Reply=7348

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=8031&Reply=8012

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=10155&Reply=10139
 RE: From the archive (SEARCH: 'C3AE-C')... -- Wayne, 11/12/2002
Thanks Mr F.I don't want to dredge up this subject again(Looks like all has been said).I will CC these heads and check the Valve Sizes.I will post my info soon.Anyone have pics of these C3AE-C heads with the Spring seats and without.If so please e-mail pics to saint@cablelan.net Thx Wayne
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15239&Reply=15239><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>cruise-o-matic</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>matt schilling, <i>11/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>any good place i can find info on '66 cruise-o-matic? one question, is the third gear on this tranny some sort of early overdrive? has low, drive , and third? </blockquote> cruise-o-matic -- matt schilling, 11/12/2002
any good place i can find info on '66 cruise-o-matic? one question, is the third gear on this tranny some sort of early overdrive? has low, drive , and third?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15240&Reply=15239><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>whoops</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>matt schilling, <i>11/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>sorry wrong forum, but any help still appreciated </blockquote> whoops -- matt schilling, 11/12/2002
sorry wrong forum, but any help still appreciated
 RE: whoops -- Charlie, 11/12/2002
I believe that start in 2 nd option was done by ford in order to help cars get going on ice, mud etc..?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15242&Reply=15239><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: cruise-o-matic</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>hawkrod, <i>11/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>no overdrive, lowsy shift selector setup thats all. it has low drive and drive 2.low is just that drive is 1-2-3 shift and drive 2 starts in 2nd and then shifts to 3rd but no low gear. 66 C6's are like that too! hawkrod </blockquote> RE: cruise-o-matic -- hawkrod, 11/12/2002
no overdrive, lowsy shift selector setup thats all. it has low drive and drive 2.low is just that drive is 1-2-3 shift and drive 2 starts in 2nd and then shifts to 3rd but no low gear. 66 C6's are like that too! hawkrod
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15246&Reply=15239><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: double lowin' a cruiso</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hey Hawkrod, remember when there was only one way to "live" with a FoMoCo cruiso?   Well, there was two ways, one was to yank it and find all parts necessary for a stick set-up or..<br><br>Smokem' with the cruiso lever in low.  Shift to "Green Dot"(Drive 1), the moment you felt that lazy cruiso shift to 2nd,  yank the lever back to low.  You were now locked in second for as long as you had the guts to take the 292, 312, 332, 352, or 390.<br><br>I've also found this  technique works well with an '86 T-bird 5.0 w/AOD.  What I mean by "well" is it works with the same sluggishness that my mom's '64 cruiso did.<br><br> </blockquote> RE: double lowin' a cruiso -- Mike McQuesten, 11/12/2002
Hey Hawkrod, remember when there was only one way to "live" with a FoMoCo cruiso? Well, there was two ways, one was to yank it and find all parts necessary for a stick set-up or..

Smokem' with the cruiso lever in low. Shift to "Green Dot"(Drive 1), the moment you felt that lazy cruiso shift to 2nd, yank the lever back to low. You were now locked in second for as long as you had the guts to take the 292, 312, 332, 352, or 390.

I've also found this technique works well with an '86 T-bird 5.0 w/AOD. What I mean by "well" is it works with the same sluggishness that my mom's '64 cruiso did.

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15247&Reply=15239><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>LOL! oh yeah, a real race car!! i had to put....</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>hawkrod, <i>11/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>the cruiso back in my tbird cause somethin' not pretty happened to the C6 and i had actually forgotten how bad it is! found a 64 parklane 4 door today and am going to finish stripping it tomorrow and almost took the trans out until i realized what i was doing! let the crusher have it, i need more cast iron like i need a hole in my head! hawkrod </blockquote> LOL! oh yeah, a real race car!! i had to put.... -- hawkrod, 11/12/2002
the cruiso back in my tbird cause somethin' not pretty happened to the C6 and i had actually forgotten how bad it is! found a 64 parklane 4 door today and am going to finish stripping it tomorrow and almost took the trans out until i realized what i was doing! let the crusher have it, i need more cast iron like i need a hole in my head! hawkrod
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15256&Reply=15239><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Cast Iron Cruiso</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Travis Miller, <i>11/13/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>As has been discussed here before, the cast iron cruiso-matic is actually a strong transmission.  Its weakness comes from putting it in gear at too high an engine RPM.  That breaks the main web in the case.  Since there are no higher stall convertors available for the cast iron cruiso, you have to use one for a small block FMX.  Change the front pump to an FMX one which bolts right on and use an adapter ring to make up the difference in size at the center of the FE crank where the snout sticks out of the convertor.      </blockquote> Cast Iron Cruiso -- Travis Miller, 11/13/2002
As has been discussed here before, the cast iron cruiso-matic is actually a strong transmission. Its weakness comes from putting it in gear at too high an engine RPM. That breaks the main web in the case. Since there are no higher stall convertors available for the cast iron cruiso, you have to use one for a small block FMX. Change the front pump to an FMX one which bolts right on and use an adapter ring to make up the difference in size at the center of the FE crank where the snout sticks out of the convertor.
 yeah, but it isn't worth the effort or money.... -- hawkrod, 11/13/2002
when you can get a C6 for so little it really does not make sense to bother with an MX. if it were a restoration or a situation where a C6 would not adapt easily the cruiso is fine. in my case a C6 was put in the 66 birds and they had the same chassis so the swap does not require any mods except for a screw hole in the side of the tunnel for a piece of linkage. with so much cheap C6 stuff out there it is a lot easier and definitely more durable to the use the C6. i just don't recommend rupturing a trans cooler line and pumping the trans dry as you cruise down the road at 65 MPH. the trans just isn't up to it! oh well, it was a used trans anyway. hawkrod
 '61-'63 TBird header initiative - look here! -- Darel, 11/12/2002
All you guys with BulletBirds:
The folks at Ford Powertrain Applications (FPA) http://www.fordpowertrain.com/Headers.htm will consider tooling for '61-'63 Tbird headers (390) if there is a level of demand...can't blame them. Stan at FPA would like to hear from 25 of us...Please drop them an email of encouragement. Pricey or not, I want some!
from FPA:

From: FordPowert@aol.com [FordPowert@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:57 PM
To: Matt (aka ValveTubeHead)
Subject: Re: '61-63 Tbird headers


Matt, we are considering a header for the 61 / 63 T-Birds! We need 25 people to step up for us to iniate the build. More on this later but "you" can spread the rumor and have people call us!!

Stan F.P.A. 253 848-9503 Or e-mail @ Fordpowert@aol.com

More details from FPA:

Matt, do the best you can. I would have to have an actual car on the hoist to finish a feasibility test but it will take in the neighborhood of 25-30 customers to commit to the project. The way we do this is to confirm the # of interested customers. Then, create an actual final price of the finished parts. (This is going to be around $400 to $450 for a set) in HD 16 gage, one piece design with ball and socket collectors in our Std. nickel chrome. Ceramic will add another $200 to 225 a set. We will not build a low grade product and the predictability of future sales numbers is very tough. Up till recently, T-Bird guys were such pure restoration people that there was "NO" interest in headers. With a high quality product, we have managed to make some in roads into the group. We will also guarantee delivery at a particular date once we take deposits on a new project.

Regards,
Stan Johnson F.P.A.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15231&Reply=15231><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>thoughts on a perfromer rpm manifold and c6-u head</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>curt rising, <i>11/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>i am wondering if there are any problems with combining the c6ae-u heads and the edelbrock perfromer rpm intake? are there any mis match ports ect. what kind of performance increase would i see with a 428?<br><br>thanks </blockquote> thoughts on a perfromer rpm manifold and c6-u head -- curt rising, 11/11/2002
i am wondering if there are any problems with combining the c6ae-u heads and the edelbrock perfromer rpm intake? are there any mis match ports ect. what kind of performance increase would i see with a 428?

thanks
 Sounds like a winner to me. -- Dave Shoe, 11/11/2002
I've never yet run a Performer RPM, but the MR manifold ports will match your heads similar to the way the PI (same as MR except for throttle linkage bosses) intake matched the C6AE-U heads on many 1966-67 428PI engines, and also similar to the way the PI alum and CJ iron intake port matched the C8AE-H heads of 1968-70 vintage 428PIs.

I believe it's a great choice.

Shoe.
 top end power -- 66galaxie, 11/10/2002
little help? i have a '68 390 in my galaxie and i'm lookin for alittle more go. right now im running pretty much stock except the offy 360 which is about to be scrapped and ignition upgrades, 352 4barrel crb. lookin for advise on keepin stock heads but putting them in the shop for work up to cj heads maybe, and top end power package, planning on new cam intake and headers ,this is my first 390 project,and any help would be much appreciated.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15220&Reply=15220><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>428 CJ dipstick</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>matt, <i>11/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I found a chrome dipstick for my 428CJ, but the # isn't correct, it's a C5TF. The guy says it's the same length, but does anyone know if the marks are are the same?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Matt </blockquote> 428 CJ dipstick -- matt, 11/10/2002
I found a chrome dipstick for my 428CJ, but the # isn't correct, it's a C5TF. The guy says it's the same length, but does anyone know if the marks are are the same?

Thanks,
Matt
 Beats me - what/where are they? [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/10/2002
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15217&Reply=15217><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Let's say....</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>TWB, <i>11/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>A guy has a 68 Torino that had a 390/auto, intends to put it in  his 72 Ford Truck, Truck has a 360/Auto,   the 390 is out already. IS that Truck 360 and auto workable and go easily into the Torino? Thanks for any input. </blockquote> Let's say.... -- TWB, 11/10/2002
A guy has a 68 Torino that had a 390/auto, intends to put it in his 72 Ford Truck, Truck has a 360/Auto, the 390 is out already. IS that Truck 360 and auto workable and go easily into the Torino? Thanks for any input.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15219&Reply=15217><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: A little work</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Not a real bolt in unless you:<br><br>drill & tap the 360 heads to accept the '68 GT manifolds.   The pickup ex. mflds. will not fit in the Torino engine bay.<br><br>Also the C6 in the pickup will not have the correct tail shaft for the Torino.   You can swap the Torino tail shaft onto the truck auto. and vice versa with the truck stub tail to the '69 Torino C6.<br><br>So it's all doable but it'll take a few mods to keep everything fitting as it should be.<br><br>And what about the poor guy buying the doggy '68 Torino GT?  Oh right, "Buyer Beware". </blockquote> RE: A little work -- Mike McQuesten, 11/10/2002
Not a real bolt in unless you:

drill & tap the 360 heads to accept the '68 GT manifolds. The pickup ex. mflds. will not fit in the Torino engine bay.

Also the C6 in the pickup will not have the correct tail shaft for the Torino. You can swap the Torino tail shaft onto the truck auto. and vice versa with the truck stub tail to the '69 Torino C6.

So it's all doable but it'll take a few mods to keep everything fitting as it should be.

And what about the poor guy buying the doggy '68 Torino GT? Oh right, "Buyer Beware".
 give me the vin... -- Peter, 11/11/2002
so i know to stay away from the poor old 68 GT torino which has been gutted out .......And save alot of time trying to work out what engine is in it ...:(

Peter
1969 Mach 1 428Cjr
WT 7034 Green
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15224&Reply=15217><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Many pickup truck trannys have the correct tail.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>If the pickup truck C6 tranny has a tailshaft that remotely looks like an automobile type of tailshaft, it's the same as an automobile tailshaft, and the tranny will work fine in a column shift car.  Floor shift will require a simple shift linkage mod.<br><br>As far as I recall, the pickup truck C6 trannies with the car-type tailshaft are the same as plain car trannies, with no extra reinforcements and no extra clutch plates.<br><br>JMO,<br>Shoe. </blockquote> Many pickup truck trannys have the correct tail. -- Dave Shoe, 11/11/2002
If the pickup truck C6 tranny has a tailshaft that remotely looks like an automobile type of tailshaft, it's the same as an automobile tailshaft, and the tranny will work fine in a column shift car. Floor shift will require a simple shift linkage mod.

As far as I recall, the pickup truck C6 trannies with the car-type tailshaft are the same as plain car trannies, with no extra reinforcements and no extra clutch plates.

JMO,
Shoe.
 sorry to step on you dave.... -- hawkrod, 11/11/2002
your right up to the point about shift linkage. those damn torino column shift cars have special linkage that does not interchange with anything. the arm in the trans needs to be a torino column shift lever and the 66/7 is even different than the 68/9 which is different from the 70/1 etc... ford just couldn't make up there minds! as a side note the original shifter and kickdown linkages from a big block torino are worth quite a bit, if the car is a hack job get an aftermarket floor shift and a lokar kickdown and sell the good stuff to some talladega owner! hawkrod
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15232&Reply=15217><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Many?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have seen a few early '70s Ford F100s with 360 and the long car style tailshaft.   I even used the short primary drive shaft from a donor when I converted my father in laws 302/C-4 '71 to a 390/C-6.   But the short shaft C-6 has been much more common to see in my looks under FE powered Ford pickups.  Hence my assumption(I know making an ass outta me) that the 360 pick up may have had the short shaft. </blockquote> RE: Many? -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2002
I have seen a few early '70s Ford F100s with 360 and the long car style tailshaft. I even used the short primary drive shaft from a donor when I converted my father in laws 302/C-4 '71 to a 390/C-6. But the short shaft C-6 has been much more common to see in my looks under FE powered Ford pickups. Hence my assumption(I know making an ass outta me) that the 360 pick up may have had the short shaft.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15233&Reply=15217><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Maybe a few million?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I haven't yet figured out which pickups got the car tail.  When I do, I'll post the details.  I'm just not very truck knowledgeable.  I did, however, buy an old 360 truck tranny with the car tail, and I've seen others, so they can't be very uncommon.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> Maybe a few million? -- Dave Shoe, 11/11/2002
I haven't yet figured out which pickups got the car tail. When I do, I'll post the details. I'm just not very truck knowledgeable. I did, however, buy an old 360 truck tranny with the car tail, and I've seen others, so they can't be very uncommon.

Shoe.
 RE: '67-'72vs.'73-'76? -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2002
In pursuit of increased FE knowledge I asked boneyard scouring John Saxon about this, short cast iron tail vs. the auto style long shaft C-6 in pickups. What he has found is that FE/C-6 combos in pickups from '67 - '72 have the shorty. The '73 - '76 FE p'ups received the long automobile style. Not scientific research mind you. Just what he has noticed in climbing over and under numerous Ford pickups.

Back to TWB's original proposal, a '68 390GT would make a great torquer for that pickup.
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240